636 F.3d 630
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Stadd served as NASA's interim associate administrator and later faced ethics requirements due to his status as a special government employee.
- He disclosed clients, including GRI at MSU, and pledged recusal from matters involving those entities under his ethics agreement.
- A $15 million earmark for NASA's earth science program became central; the funds were ultimately allocated to the MRC, with MSU receiving a large portion.
- Stadd pressured allocation to the MRC and MSU, including meetings with MSU representative Cleave and communications suggesting influence over the distribution.
- Invoices and post-employment claims tied Stadd’s MSU-GRI work to the earmark, and he sought increased MSU compensation referencing the earmark.
- Following trial, Stadd was convicted on three counts: one §208(a)/§216(a)(2) count and two §1001(a)(2) counts, with sentencing imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §208(a) element | Stadd contributed to a 'particular matter' affecting a financial interest in MSU/GRI. | The earmark allocation did not constitute a particular matter focused on discrete interests. | There was ample evidence of a particular matter and personal/substantial participation. |
| Materiality under §1001 | Statements were material because they could influence Greenstone and NASA's ethics review. | Statements were not materially false under Neder’s standard. | Statements were material; Neder’s standard applied and supported the conviction. |
| Harmless error in §208(a) jury instruction | Jury should have been instructed with direct/predictable effect language. | Omission was harmless given the evidence and jury’s willfulness finding. | Any error was harmless; verdict upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality defined by tendency to influence a decision)
- United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (materiality in agency context; Neder standard adopted)
- United States v. Wynn, 61 F.3d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (sufficiency of evidence review standard)
- United States v. Baker, 626 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1980) (definition of materiality contested by defendant)
- United States v. Stadd, 636 F.3d 630 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (authoritative decision (contextual reference))